S
StAnastasia
Guest
That’s a lie – I never said transubstantiation is symbolic. You fabricated that and imputed it to me. And then you insinuated that I’m Protestant.
- Status
B
buffalo
Guest
OK maybe I got it wrong.
Please answer: Yes or No
Do you believe that at consecration ordinary bread and wine become the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ?
Do you believe Jesus was teaching the real Presence to His Apostles?
Did the Church believe this and codify it formally by using the term transubstantiation?
Do you teach your students the properties of substance and accidents?
Do you tell them you believe transubstantiation to be true?
M
michelleds
Guest
What idiotic self-important and self-justifying drivel!
Addressing all readers here:
Academic groups with the title “religion” or even “thelogy” in them do not signify approval by the Roman Church necessarily, nor do they confer authority over Roman Catholic doctrine, regardless of the “conclusions” of presenters. The AAR is a globally-oriented ecumenical group which explores the intersection of various contemporary issues/topics, and re-examines some traditional topics.
Samplings of discussion topics (not necessarily the most radical ones) at this weekend’s American Academy of Religion convocation:
Jain Studies
Queer Studies
Contemporary Pagan Studies (including Dianic Wicca)
Womanist Studies
Feminist Earth Studies
“Salmon is Our Sacrament”
Druidry as a Religion
AIDS at 30 in a Queer San Francisco Chuch
Dancing with the Goddess: Singing for Ourselves
Hip-Hop as Religious Commodity
More details on some of the papers:
~The Apostle Paul’s Queer Politics:
~“That They Might Have Joy”: Toward a Postheteronormative, Gay Mormon Heremeneutic
- This paper will conclude by exploring the implications of Paul’s messianic/queer sociality for a contemporary queer politics by connecting Saint Paul, Michel Foucault, Leo Bersani, and San Francisco bathhouses.
:bigyikes:
~How Bron Taylor’s Dark Green Religion [DGR] will contribute/is contributing to the rise of
a global, planetary religion
~Hoop Spiritualities: The Hula-Hoop and Embodied Spiritual Practice
**“Hooping is my church,” **an anonymous survey participant explained. “Hooping is where I commune with God.” This quote is not unique among hula hoopers (called “hoopers”). Most hoopers describe an experience of unexpected transformation (mental, emotional, and physical) while hooping, often invoking established religious language or creating new religious language to describe their hoop experience.
~Breast-feeding Jesus: Incarnation, the Mothering Body, and the Queering of Christ
Jeannine Hill Fletcher, Fordham University, and Michele Saracino, Manhattan College
In an era described as ‘post-feminist’ and a North American climate of public Christian conservatism, when theologies that conflate ‘mother’ and ‘female’ continue to gain a wide hearing, the feminist theologian wonders what possibilities Christology holds for challenging gendered roles and heteronormativity in the Christian community. This paper suggests multiple avenues for considering breast-feeding Jesus as a visual image that provides a platform for beginning a much-needed transformation. Theorizing motherhood as embodiment that leaks provides content for witnessing incarnation as divine leakage into the human condition and the human body as leakage that sustains divinity. The medieval image of the lactating Christ transposes this leakage in ways that might disrupt of the intersecting misogyny and homophobia of the contemporary Church. This constructive theology offers an alternative metaphor of maternity rooted in breast-feeding Jesus to suggest a dynamic relationship between human and divine embedded in the Chalcedonian formula.
aarweb.org/Meetings/Annual_Meeting/Current_Meeting/Program_Book/2011Abstracts.pdf
(Some things to chew on over your Thanksgiving Dinner.)
okay, that was sort of judgemental of me. what I meant to say was what utter trash devised in the third ring of Hell.
okay, that didn’t come out right either. I must have meant Uncle Screwtape himself could not have fantasized such claptrap.
seriously.
P
Paul_Infirdigno
Guest
umm… may i remind you we are all created by God with equal dignity and rights, and none of us deserve to be spoken(or er… written to) in such a way(talking to all users, because i know most of us get carried away sometimes, just used the qoute above as an example) i know this is kind of off topic but seriously some of the discussions way too carried away, i don’t judge anybody of course i understand you get into the debate, but maybe its time for a reminder that we should speak to each other as brothers and sisters in Christ, and reflect the love of God to everyone, Catholic or unCatholic.
just a humble thought from this humble sinner,
Paul~
M
michelleds
Guest
I was referring to the topics of that conference, not to my dear friend Elizabeth!
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
Paul, Michelle’s criticism was of the content of the convocation, not any poster. When someone quotes a post, and then responds to the post, they are commenting on the content of the post, not to or about the poster (myself), nor anyone else, unless such a responder specifies that.
There’s nothing scandalous or judgmental in how michelleds replied. Nothing. She wasn’t replying “to a poster.” She was commenting on the content of the conference this weekend, some of the contents which I listed.
There’s nothing scandalous or judgmental in how michelleds replied. Nothing. She wasn’t replying “to a poster.” She was commenting on the content of the conference this weekend, some of the contents which I listed.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
Stepping in here…
He may be referring to post #20 on this thread, in which you contradicted only one portion of grannymh’s post (the portion you selected was her dismay about the “symbolic” understanding of transubstantiation being a factor in low Mass attendance) to state that Masses in your area are “thronged,” and which an implied a “nevertheless” — by virtue of your selecting only that portion of granny’s post.
(The implication is that possibly many parishioners in your parish do not believe in the classic doctrine of transubstantiation, do believe in a “symbolic” understanding of Christ’s presence, but nevertheless --contradicting granny’s theory-- attend in large numbers.)
From your post 1283 from the now-closed Science & Religion thread:
To prevent confusion and scandal, it is helpful to differentiate the doctrine or the concept from the language used to describe that understanding, if that’s how you meant to distinguish your preferential understanding, or wording, from that of classic Catholic wording.
J
John21652
Guest
I was reading through this thread with quite some interest when I suddenly came across Elizabeth502’s post. I nearly fell off my chair! Michelleds must have also been perched precariously on her chair when she responded and had trouble reaching the keyboard. However, then I came across Paul Infirdigno’s little admonition of Michelleds…
Your right Paul. We are indeed all created by God with equal dignity and rights. However you forget that a whole lot of people throw their dignity onto the scrap heap during that journey called ‘life’ and some even throw away their ‘rights’. Consequently, lots of people deserve to be spoken/written to harshly. It might even help them wake up. Anyway, in simple terms, idjits need telling, so they don’t stay idjits.
What Elizabeth502 has pointed readers towards is the sheer lunacy of those who wish to make ‘connections’ to justify their sorry and perverse existences.
I got especially peeved when I noticed their was no topic on fishing and the Apostle Peter.
Of course, we all know that certain movements and their agenda driven members would dearly love to shoot down in flames that great driver of the early Church, St. Paul. They just don’t like what he had to say; he threatens their sorry existences with sound logic. The real sadness is how far they are willing to go using totally illogical arguments and in the process they trash their dignity. And I have the right to judge them. St. Paul said so.
Catholic/Christian charity does not mean tolerating the intolerable. Nor does it mean tolerating illogicalities, surreptitious biblical/religious studies, idiots and any other type of human discourse that will just end up sending the whole of society to hell in a hand cart.
T
tonyrey
Guest
You are right, of course. (I was going to write “dead right” but quickly changed my mind!)
Mexico City is one of most horrific disasters waiting to happen. Chance again will eventually rear its ugly head - unless Providence intervenes… But Jesus as always puts it into perspective: “Fear not those who kill the body…”
It’s the spice of philosophy which produces the most appetising intellectual nourishment we can imagine - in this world at least.
T
tonyrey
Guest
At least you have an Academy of Religion in the US. It would probably be viewed with great suspicion in the UK and regarded as a pernicious threat by such influential academics as Richard Dawkins whose antireligious propaganda has helped to foster a hostile environment in which the Catholic Adoption Society has been forced to close under the false pretext that it is intolerant at a time when the Social Services are so hopelessly inefficient that there are many children who have been waiting for years for a home where they can be cared for with love and personal attention…
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
StAnastasia
Just for the record, in what way is the Last Supper (Eucharist) recorded in the Gospels at variance with the Catholic teaching on Transubstantiation?
Is the doctrine of Transubstantiation a heresy? Yes or no?
Just for the record, in what way is the Last Supper (Eucharist) recorded in the Gospels at variance with the Catholic teaching on Transubstantiation?
Is the doctrine of Transubstantiation a heresy? Yes or no?
G
grannymh
Guest
From post 63.
May I respectfully point out,
that the Catholic Church did not have to wait until St. Thomas Aquinas, not Aristotle, used philosophical reasoning, not physics, to describe what Jesus Christ was teaching in the Gospel of John, Chapter Six. Jesus, Himself, made transubstantiation very clear.
**On the day before He was to suffer, He took bread in His holy and venerable hands, and with eyes raised to heaven to You, O God, His almighty Father, giving You thanks, He said the blessing, broke the bread and gave it to His disciples, saying: “Take this, all of you, and eat of it, for this is My Body, which will be given up for you.” **
From the Eucharistic Prayer, The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
StAnastasia, post 70.
“Jesus did not teach transubstantiation.
Those are philosophical categories imposed later”
With all due respect for intellectual, highly educated people, transubstantiation is not a philosophical category, it is Jesus Christ giving Himself to us. According to the American Heritage College Dictionary, transubstantiation means “Conversion of one substance into another.” This is what Jesus was describing about Himself in the Gospel of John, Chapter Six.
StAnastasi, post 74.
“Jesus did not teach transubstantiation.
It would be many centuries before that philosophical language would develop and
be applied do describe the manner of Christ’s Eucharistic presence.”
Gentle Readers,
I am very concerned that you will get the wrong impression when you hear the repetition of the statement “Jesus did not teach transubstantiation.”
When the Catholic Church convenes a major council such as Trent, protocol requires that Scripture be studied thoroughly. While it is a bonus to have an official Latin word to describe the Great Gift of the Real Presence of Our Loving Savior, the doctrine of transubstantiation is supported by Divine Revelation which is found in John, Chapter Six and other sections of the New Testament.
I am well aware that some people claim that the Real Presence was invented in the 13th century and that John, Chapter Six is some kind of symbol. This is not Catholicism. Please do not be confused by the statements of StAnastasia.
From Post 79.
“Jesus was not teaching transubstantiation,
any more than he was teaching gravity theory when speaking of the sparrow falling to the ground. You have to listen to the real meaning of Jesus’ words, and not doggedly insist that he was using philosophical terminology which in fact he was not.”
My apology. This statement is somewhat confusing. Of course, Jesus was not speaking 13th century Latin. He was speaking plainly. So plainly, that some people said: “This saying is hard; who can accept it?” John 6: 60. Of course, we need to listen to the real meaning of Jesus’ words. This real meaning is the same meaning of transubstantiation.
Which brings us back again to: “Jesus was not teaching transubstantiation.” ??
Gentle Readers,
I know that many Christian faiths do consider John, Chapter Six as symbolic. I can understand why all this denial of Jesus’ teaching transubstantiation can lead to the conclusion that Jesus was symbolic in reference to Himself. I know that many people consider Trent as changing horses in midstream. In addition, I am very sorry that there are people in every religion who think symbolically about Jesus Christ, True God and True Man.
Please read John 3:16. Some people consider this verse the summary of Jesus’ mission on earth. Jesus is real. Jesus bleeding on a cross is real. Jesus’s promise – “I am the Bread of Life” is real.
As Catholicism teaches, Jesus is really present in the Eucharist.
Gentle Readers,
May I respectfully point out,
that the Catholic Church did not have to wait until St. Thomas Aquinas, not Aristotle, used philosophical reasoning, not physics, to describe what Jesus Christ was teaching in the Gospel of John, Chapter Six. Jesus, Himself, made transubstantiation very clear.
**On the day before He was to suffer, He took bread in His holy and venerable hands, and with eyes raised to heaven to You, O God, His almighty Father, giving You thanks, He said the blessing, broke the bread and gave it to His disciples, saying: “Take this, all of you, and eat of it, for this is My Body, which will be given up for you.” **
From the Eucharistic Prayer, The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
StAnastasia, post 70.
“Jesus did not teach transubstantiation.
Those are philosophical categories imposed later”
With all due respect for intellectual, highly educated people, transubstantiation is not a philosophical category, it is Jesus Christ giving Himself to us. According to the American Heritage College Dictionary, transubstantiation means “Conversion of one substance into another.” This is what Jesus was describing about Himself in the Gospel of John, Chapter Six.
StAnastasi, post 74.
“Jesus did not teach transubstantiation.
It would be many centuries before that philosophical language would develop and
be applied do describe the manner of Christ’s Eucharistic presence.”
Gentle Readers,
I am very concerned that you will get the wrong impression when you hear the repetition of the statement “Jesus did not teach transubstantiation.”
When the Catholic Church convenes a major council such as Trent, protocol requires that Scripture be studied thoroughly. While it is a bonus to have an official Latin word to describe the Great Gift of the Real Presence of Our Loving Savior, the doctrine of transubstantiation is supported by Divine Revelation which is found in John, Chapter Six and other sections of the New Testament.
I am well aware that some people claim that the Real Presence was invented in the 13th century and that John, Chapter Six is some kind of symbol. This is not Catholicism. Please do not be confused by the statements of StAnastasia.
From Post 79.
“Jesus was not teaching transubstantiation,
any more than he was teaching gravity theory when speaking of the sparrow falling to the ground. You have to listen to the real meaning of Jesus’ words, and not doggedly insist that he was using philosophical terminology which in fact he was not.”
My apology. This statement is somewhat confusing. Of course, Jesus was not speaking 13th century Latin. He was speaking plainly. So plainly, that some people said: “This saying is hard; who can accept it?” John 6: 60. Of course, we need to listen to the real meaning of Jesus’ words. This real meaning is the same meaning of transubstantiation.
Which brings us back again to: “Jesus was not teaching transubstantiation.” ??
Gentle Readers,
I know that many Christian faiths do consider John, Chapter Six as symbolic. I can understand why all this denial of Jesus’ teaching transubstantiation can lead to the conclusion that Jesus was symbolic in reference to Himself. I know that many people consider Trent as changing horses in midstream. In addition, I am very sorry that there are people in every religion who think symbolically about Jesus Christ, True God and True Man.
Please read John 3:16. Some people consider this verse the summary of Jesus’ mission on earth. Jesus is real. Jesus bleeding on a cross is real. Jesus’s promise – “I am the Bread of Life” is real.
As Catholicism teaches, Jesus is really present in the Eucharist.
T
tonyrey
Guest
I fail to understand how anyone who believes Jesus is the Son of God can reject His Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist given that He is already present in everything that exists! We live in a miraculous universe from start to finish…
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
If the Church had ever taught that the Eucharist was merely a symbol and not real, and then began at some point to teach the Eucharist as real rather than a symbol, there can be no doubt that a great hue and cry of heresy would have erupted throughout the early or Medieval Church. But this never happened.
The contrary did happen. The Real Presence was taught everywhere in Christendom until the 11th Century heretic Berengarius of Tours was condemned for teaching otherwise. Even the first Protestant reformer Martin Luther, who repudiated many Catholic doctrines, chose to retain the doctrine of the Real Presence.
StAnastasia, exactly what are you teaching your Catholic students? That Jesus did not institute the Real Presence at the Last Supper? Or that Jesus did institute the Real Presence at the Last Supper, and that theologians later introduced a philosophical term to help explain the literal Real Presence of Jesus’s Body and Blood in the Eucharist?
The contrary did happen. The Real Presence was taught everywhere in Christendom until the 11th Century heretic Berengarius of Tours was condemned for teaching otherwise. Even the first Protestant reformer Martin Luther, who repudiated many Catholic doctrines, chose to retain the doctrine of the Real Presence.
StAnastasia, exactly what are you teaching your Catholic students? That Jesus did not institute the Real Presence at the Last Supper? Or that Jesus did institute the Real Presence at the Last Supper, and that theologians later introduced a philosophical term to help explain the literal Real Presence of Jesus’s Body and Blood in the Eucharist?
P
Paul_Infirdigno
Guest
wow am i embarissed
but my statement still stands, although sometimes it is important to slap some people back into their place, we should do it with Charity in our hearts,
true,sorry for using michelle as an example, but some of the posts on here are pretty nasty…
T
tonyrey
Guest
Unfortunately nastiness is not restricted to one side or the other…wow am i embarissed
but my statement still stands, although sometimes it is important to slap some people back into their place, we should do it with Charity in our hearts,
true,sorry for using michelle as an example, but some of the posts on here are pretty nasty…
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
Innocent mistake, obviously.wow am i embarissed
I do not believe I can be accused, in my post 92, of “slapping some people back into their place.” I listed an array of topics which, judging from perusing the entire weekend’s agenda, were representative of that conference. It seems to me that anyone who is going to announce and even celebrate an attendance at an event, or to announce membership in a particular organization, needs to be willing to have that event or that organization subjected to public scrutiny. This is particularly when the event or organization has “religion” or “theology” in the title.
This is a Catholic information forum, as well as a discussion forum. Thousands of curious seekers come here, Paul. They do not necessarily first visit the Catholic Answers home page (for authentic answers to questions about accurate Church doctrine). As per the usual contemporary practice of first visiting message boards and blogs instead of research and official information sites, these seekers usually come to CAF before CA. And anyone who claims authority, or claims authoritative knowledge, or claims theology as a profession (including having theologians or other ‘religious people’ as colleagues), could be regarded by a newcomer or seeker as someone to look to for Answers to Catholic Questions. Such inquirers have a right to know just what exactly the fuller peer group is of anyone claiming such authority on this forum.
The examples I listed may be distasteful, but they are not uncharitable. They are accurate, and the listed “details” I provided are verbatim from the agenda list.
G
grannymh
Guest
On the religion side of this thread, here is an interesting comment about Catholicism.
“It appears there are several styles of Catholicism out there, and I prefer the style that is in conversation with the modern world. I guess that makes me a card-carrying modernist!”
Could we please address the substance of the comments and ignore the person or persons most likely to make this type of statement. Consider that this comment could easily be positive as in Catholic apologetics or negative…
“It appears there are several styles of Catholicism out there, and I prefer the style that is in conversation with the modern world. I guess that makes me a card-carrying modernist!”
Could we please address the substance of the comments and ignore the person or persons most likely to make this type of statement. Consider that this comment could easily be positive as in Catholic apologetics or negative…
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
granny
"It appears there are several styles of Catholicism out there, and I prefer the style that is in conversation with the modern world. I guess that makes me a card-carrying modernist!"
There are not several styles of Catholicism. There is one style that conforms to the unity required of His Church by Christ and reaffirmed by Paul. A style that “is in conversation with the modern world” is a style that is no longer in conversation with the truth, because the modern world is full of lies and bald-faced strategies to make the truth conform to the modern world rather than the modern world conform to the truth.
We have seen the Anglican conversation with the modern world. Where did it get them?
"It appears there are several styles of Catholicism out there, and I prefer the style that is in conversation with the modern world. I guess that makes me a card-carrying modernist!"
There are not several styles of Catholicism. There is one style that conforms to the unity required of His Church by Christ and reaffirmed by Paul. A style that “is in conversation with the modern world” is a style that is no longer in conversation with the truth, because the modern world is full of lies and bald-faced strategies to make the truth conform to the modern world rather than the modern world conform to the truth.
We have seen the Anglican conversation with the modern world. Where did it get them?
I
inocente
Guest
Apologies for late reply
.I wasn’t criticizing Ratzinger (I like his writing), just using him as an example of how it’s hard to talk about the spiritual for long without using physical metaphors, since the spiritual is otherwise hard to put into words: We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans. - Rom 8:26
- Status